Simulation Scenario about Brazil - Essay Example

Introduction Guinea Bissau is a small country in the western parts of the African continent that has been rocked with several cases of insecurity posed by acute military threats, organized and successful coups as well as underground cold wars emanating from within her boundaries. Attempts made by the country to come out control her borders and the people have been faced with a lot of challenges from within. Since the end of the civil wars of 1998- 1999, Guinea Bissau has fraught with serious political crises. Among the most tempting scenes include political assassinations, army mutinies and successful coups as well as attempted coups placing it as one of the most insecure nations in Africa and on earth. Remarkable instances that have recorded as the most challenging instances in the history of Guinea Bissau include the killing of the state army chief of staff, general Tagme Na Waie, on March 2009 during a bomb blast which took place right at the military camp. This is just but an example of many assassinations that have taken place in the country. Several instances of attempted assassinations of other prominent political and military leaders also tell the dark history of Guinea Bissau. Another instance of state insecurity threat is the successful army mutiny led by the deputy army chief Antonio Injali in 2010. The mutiny was against the army chief of staff as well as the prime minister of Guinea Bissau and led to the confirmation of the heads of the mutiny in a few months time. Such ousting of the state leaders and important persons are among the many factors that led to the declaration of Guinea Bissau an unsafe state that required the intervention of the United Nations Security Council. Besides the past coups and assassinations described in the past sections of this paper, the nation’s military staged yet another military coup against the then head of state and the prime minister ending up with the installation of a military junta, a move that raised the concern of the international community to group Guinea Bissau as an urgent situation that needed an immediate restoration. Several coups and insecurity threats that have been experienced in Guinea Bissau in the recent times as well as in the past have as well called for the attention of the regional block such as The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) whose troops have been involved in active peace keeping mission in the country. Such moves have seen the restoration of relative that have seen a few instances of development taking place in the country. Since then, the new political configuration in Guinea Bissau has been considered by much suspicion by the international community. The suspicions have been raised due to the tough political and leadership transitions in Guinea Bissau hence the need for the international community to call for the UN peace keeping mandate in the nation till proper peace is restored back into the country. Following the many instances of insecurity threats in the nation, the government of Guinea Bissau, on 11th July, 2007 wrote a letter to the UN secretary general requesting for the placement of the country under the Peace Building Commission’s agenda. The approval of Guinea’s request on 11th December 2007 placed it among the other three nations that are currently under the keen observation of the UN peace building commission. The international community has since mandated Brazil to chair the Guinea Bissau peace building commission, led by the Brazilian ambassador Maria Luiza Viotti, in line with the UN commissions’ requirements. In this paper I will analyze the rationale of the Brazil’s role in the peace building mission in Guinea Bissau. Section 1: Policy agenda The international policies have great influences at the regional level potentially controlling the way other nations operate. The international community is charged with the responsibility of the keeping the peaceful state of the other states (Embalo, 2012). Gibert, (2009) records that the regional and national policies need to be taken note of in order to help conserve the local development and security agenda. According to Azevedo-Harman, (2013), the local states surrounding countries in turmoil have the full information and awareness of the intriguing factors that might have resulted into the development of the insecurity problems experienced by the countries in question. Bello, (2012) has looked at the various issues that have been raised by African nations upon the intervention mechanisms spearheaded by the western nations. According to Bueger, (2011) most African leaders have argued that the prime intention of the western nations in the security situations of the African continent is to propagate their own agenda and fulfill their own interests and not the restore peace as has been argued. The colonial governments that controlled most of the African nations during their colonial days as Crisis Group, (2008), African Union, (2003) and African Union, (2002) records are the same ones that have been at the forefront on trying the find peace in the respective African nations. Historical injustices done by the western colonials during their reign as African kings and queens Yabi, (2010) and Jubilut, (2011) has made most historians to argue that the ill intention that was borne by the colonial governments is still intact and have not changed since their departure. Padrao, (2008) and MacQueen, 2003) observations include practical examples where most of the African nations including Zimbabwe, Congo, Cote d’ voire, Kenya etc have argued that they can solve their own internal problems without involving the foreign western nations. The security problems facing Guinea Bissau are best understood by the regional nations such as the member states to the regional trade bock (ECOWAS In addition to their in depth understanding of the regional problems, the regional (African nations) also have regional policy frameworks that regulate their operations to promote trade and development. Peace is one of the key agenda proposed by the ECOWAS among her constituent states. It is therefore very important for the regional nations t o spearhead the peace building process in the country. Other than being effective in finding more appropriate solutions compared to the foreign nations, the entitlement of the regional nations such as the ECOWAS member states in seeking solutions for Guinea Bissau’s condition will as well speed up the time for carrying out the operation at a relatively lower cost (Ayling & Sarah, 2001). Section 2: strategy briefing The UN Security Council is composed of selected powerful nations including Azebaijan, China, Colombia, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, Russian Federation, South Africa, Togo and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These nations together with the chairing nation are charged with the responsibility of restoring peace in Guinea Bissau. Some critics Ayoob, (2001), Bagshaw & Diane, (2004) and Beardsley, (2004) have investigated the rationale of the Security Council’s mandate in building peace agenda at the international levels without bringing into play the individual country’s interests in the country in question. Bellamy, Paul, & Stuart, (2004) for instance has argued that it is very easy for countries with common interests in the target nation to play their tactics in order to satisfy their hidden agenda. Gilbert, (2009) has for instance asserted that the roles of Brazil in the peace building mission in Guinea Bissau could be marred by similar interests. According to (Yabi, 2010) the state of economy of the two nations in question play a great role in determining the manner in which the peace agenda are driven during the process of carrying out the UN mandates. A lot of debate has been going on about Brazil’s possible influence in the peace building process in Guinea Bissau. Jubilut, (2011) looks into the possible influences of that a developing nation can have on the security state of Guinea Bissau. The nation (Guinea Bissau) is grouped as one of the most corrupt nations in the region alongside Nigeria and Liberia. Bello, (2012) has focused upon the possibility of Brazil propagating their own agenda to squabble about real issues in order to propagate their private undertaking with an aim of siphoning the country’s resources. The 2014 African Union Summit in Ethiopia for instance advocated for the deferral of the Kenyan cases for the International Criminal Court (ICC) quoting biasness in trying the solve African problems by the western courts (Crisis, 2008). Many African leaders have showed unwillingness to corporate with the western nations in helping them solve their internal problems. A number of African leaders and policy makers (Azevedo-Harman, 2013) have also argued that the current problems facing the African continent were imposed upon them by the same western nations. It is based on this reason that (Embalo. 2012) has recorded that the main intentions of the western nations in vesting their interest in the African affairs is merely guided by their need to uphold the existence of such problems for their own gain. In regard to the allegations described, (Union, 2002) note that given opportunity, the African nations can fairly corporate and bring in lasting solutions for the current problems of insecurity facing them. Based on mere observations of Brazil’s willingness to chair the peace building commission in Guinea Bissau, (MacQueen, 2003) records that the level of commitments made by Maria Luiza Viotti has not been far from insufficient. In regard to this observation, (Padrao, 2008) has followed the frequency of Viotti’s trips to Guinea Bissau as measure of her commitment to solving the insecurity problem existing in the nation. According to (Bueger, 2011) observations, since the end of the peace building exploratory missions that were led by the chairperson, Viotti, Brazil has then given priority to other nations I the western realms. This was evidenced by the cancelation of Viotti’s trip to Guinea Bissau in the year 2010 in preference for Haiti where Brazil is also a key player in her Stabilization Mission and Brazil’s inclusion in the UN Security Council (Bellamy, Paul & Staurt, 2004). Lessons from UN security reports on the intervention mechanisms in the Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi and Siera Leon pointed to the influence of the neighbouring nations in stirring insecurity in the respective countries (Dallaire & Brent, 2003). Rebel groups in the regions were found to be getting financial support from the local and surrounding leaders from the neighboring nations hence making them acutely strong. Similar situations as (Kassa, 2004) argues have been quite common in most African nations including the turmoil in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, Cote d’ voire, Somalia among other African states. The survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, (2013) indicates that most rebel groups have no reliable source of income and depend entirely on suport from the regional tycoons. The reports cites that most african rebel groups either rely on the regional or internal funding bodies composed of groups of tycoons who are not impressed with the rullign systems. According to the research conducted by (Lang, 2002) on the secrecy of the funding groups, they assert that it is very difficult to discover the source of funding that these groups acclaim unless close monitoring is put in place by the peace agents. There is every need therefore to begin looking for the regional problems from a regional perspective in order to discern the development of the intriguing problems faced by the individual nations. In this regard (Malone, 2004) asserts that the regional blocs such as ECOWAS, SADCC, etc have played a great role in stringing together their member states and thus easily succeeding in entrenching security conditions in the member states. Kissinger, (2001) argues from the economic point of view, illustrating that regional trade parties are held important among African nations that no country wants to loose these ties. The less developed nations among these member states, for instance, hold strongly to the regional trade partners since their entire livelihoods were dependent on the income generated from these partnering nations. To illustrate this point, (Kuperman, 2004), spots the sanctions issued on Cote d’ voire by the regional body ECOWAS that saw the liberalization of the said state 2008. Similar threats of sanctions have been posed on Nigeria by ECOWAS, and Zimbabwe by SADCC to put an end to military threats and enforce the rule and strength of the state laws. In order to adequately understand the underlying issues in the security systems of a nation in regard to that of the surrounding nations, (Mace, 2003) describes the general state of African security by giving specific examples with some African states that have been in serious security situations. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and Somalia etc in addition, are some African nations that have been under great security threats imposed from within their borders. The Rwanda rebels for instance were argued to have been sourcing support from their neighbouring countries including Uganda. The lasting wars experienced in the Central African Republic were propagated by the incursions from the neighbouring countries making it difficult to root out the rebel groups (Malan, 2006). In this regard, the control chair of the peace building mission should be spearheaded by the local and regional partners that deeply understand the underlying issues leading to the insecurity situations in the country in question (Holzgrefe & Robert, 2003). Divergent opinions have emerged among scholar and policy makers; with regard to the peace building missions chaired by the regional blocs. These argument are base don the fact that regional bodies, each, have regional problems such as border problems, scramble over transboundary resources etc leading to unjust and biased judgments (Gregoire, 2004). On such instances, where the rebel groups are financed by the tycoons from across the borders, the international community is recommended (Flavin, 2004) in trying to seek lasting solutions. This is the prime reason for the accordance of the UN Security Council for its involvement in finding solutions to the security problems in Guinea Bissau. According to (Findlay, 2012) observations, the foreign nations such as Brazil playing the neutral partner in finding security measures for another nations deems relevant on a diplomatic point of view. The international community operates under a strongly entrenched diplomatic state of affairs. The use of force as (Deng, 2011) notes is recommended under very extreme situations where diplomacy has failed. In conjunction with the UN considerations for the employment of foreign diplomacy in her security missions, the engagement of the regional blocs is inevitable. Basing my arguments on this fact, I would recommend for the strong engagement of the regional and neighbouring nations besides Brazil and other UN Security Council member states in seeking for the best ways of ending the Guinea Bissau insecurity. This move will avail proper means for solving the eminent problems and find lasting solutions to the mentioned nation. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to reiterate here that the state of Guinea Bissau is similar to the security state in other countries of the world such as Afghanistan, Sierra Leon, Rwanda, and Burundi among others. Rebel groups are today a common menace to all world governments calling for the participation of the international community, such as the UN Security Council in helping to restore peace in these nations. The UN case is conducted in a manner similar to that of Guinea Bissau whereby a foreign nation is mandated to chair the peace building commissions as neutral parties. Besides, the heading by these foreign nations such as Brazil in the case of Guinea Bissau, there is a string need to include the neighbouring and member states to regional blocs in helping to find proper security measures for the country in question. Bibliography African Union. (2003). “Policy Framework for the Establishment of the African Standby Force and the Military Staff Committee, Part I (Exp/ASF-MSC/2).” Adopted by the. African Chiefs of Defence Staff. Addis Ababa: African Union. Ayling, S., & Sarah, G. (2001). “UNTAC and INTERFET: A Comparative Analysis.”. (N. D. University, Producer) Retrieved 2001, from www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/pacific2001/aylingpaper.htm. Ayoob, M. (2001). “Humanitarian Intervention and International Society.”. Global Governance , 7 (2), 51- 73. Azevedo-Harman, E. (2013). Guinea-Bissaus International Relevance: Small Country, Big Challenge. London: Chatham House. Bagshaw, S., & Diane, P. (2004). Protect or Neglect? Toward a More Effective United Nations Approach to the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons. Washington DC: The Brookings-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Beardsley, M. B. (2004). “Lessons Learned or Not Learned from the Rwandan Genocide.”. 7th Annual Graduate Student Symposium (pp. 29-30). Royal Military College of Canada. Bellamy, A. J., Paul, W., & Stuart, G. (2004). Understanding Peacekeeping. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. Bello, O. (2012). The EUs approach to Fragility in Guinea Bissau: Between Ambition and Coherence, Policy Brief. Barcelona: FRIDE. Bueger, C. (2011). The Clash of Practice: Political Controversy and the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission. Evidence & Policy , 7 (1), 171-191. Crisis Group. (2008). Guinea-Bissau: In Need of a State, Africa Report N 142. Retrieved 2008, from http://www.crisisgroup.org/en.aspx Dallaire, Roméo A. and Brent B. (2003). Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. Toronto: Random House. Deng, Francis M. (2011). Protecting the Dispossessed: A Challenge for the International Community. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2013, November). Guinea-Bissau report. Retrieved November 27th , 2013 Embalo, B. (2012). Civil Military Relations and Political Order in Guinea-Bissau. Journal of Modern African Studies , 50 (2), 253- 281. Findlay, Trevor. (2002). The Use of Force in UN Peace Operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Flavin, Col. William. (2004). Civil Military Operations: Afghanistan Observations on Civil Military Operations During the First Year of Operation Enduring Freedom. Carlisle, PA: United States Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, Army War College. Gibert, M. V. (2009). The Securitisation of the EUs Development Agenda in Africa: Insights from Guinea Bissau. Perspectives on European Politics and Society , 10 (4), 621- 637. Gregoire, Joseph P. (2004).“The Bases of French Peace Operations Doctrine.” Carlisle Papers in Security Strategy Series 4. Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute. Holzgrefe, J. L. and Robert O. Keohane, eds. (2003). Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jubilut, L. L. (2011). Towards a New Jus Post Bellum: The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission and the Improvement of Post-Conflict Efforts and Accountability. Minnesota Journal of International Law , 20, 26-64. Kassa, Michael. (2004).“Humanitarian Assistance in the DRC.” In Challenges of Peace Implementation: The UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mark Malan and Joao Gomes Porto, eds. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies. Lang, Anthony F. (2002). Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention. New York: State University of New York University Press. Malone, David M., ed. (2004) The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century. Boulder: Lynn Reinner. Kuperman, Alan J. (2004). “Humanitarian Hazard.” Harvard International Review 26:1. Kissinger, Henry. (2001). Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. New York: Simon and Schuster. Mace, Catriona. (2002)“Operation Artemis: Mission Improbable?” European Security Review. MacQueen, N. (2003). A Community of Illusions? Portugal, the CPLP and Peacemaking in Guinea-Bissau. International Peacekeeping , 10 (2), 1-26. Malan, Mark.(2006). Developing the ECOWAS Civilian Peace Support Operations Structure. Report of an Experts’ Workshop convened at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, 9-10 February 2006. Accra, Ghana: KAIPTC. Padrao, T. M. (2008). From Peoples Struggle to This War of Today : Entanglements of Peace and Conflict in Guinea-Bissau. Africa , 78 (2), 245-263. Union, A. (2002). “Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union. Durban: African Union. Yabi, G. O. (2010). The Role of ECOWAS in Managing Political Crisis and Conflict: The Cases of Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Read More